Should We Eliminate Our Vacation Policy?http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-should-we-eliminate-our-vacation-policy-2009-12/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:52:53 -0500Henry Blodgethttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ce02ab449e2aea909010000selinaSun, 14 Nov 2010 13:30:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ce02ab449e2aea909010000
It is true that work and life should be properly balanced. We should not neglect either. We should educate our working classes about this technique of balancing both sides. However, it is seen that we take due care in availing vacations but we do not give the same amount of care for fulfilling our responsibilities. Thanks for the nice post. <a href="http://www.secretextensions.co.uk/">Hair Extension</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c23247a7f8b9a0f359e0400JermanineThu, 24 Jun 2010 05:25:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c23247a7f8b9a0f359e0400
At The Business Insider, we currently have a standard vacation policy--a certain number of weeks a year.
<a rel="windows dedicated server" href="http://www.mydediserver.com/windows-dedicated-server.php">windows dedicated server</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4babfdee7f8b9a0840300500Jonathan DunfeeThu, 25 Mar 2010 20:21:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4babfdee7f8b9a0840300500
Curious that no one mentioned the security aspect of this (at least that I saw scanning through the old posts). Do you really want a policy that never forces vacation or tracks when a person is away? We were talking about this Netflix policy at work -- the consensus was whoever is pushing this at Netflix is probably trying to run an embezzling scheme without raising red flags.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b44ec4000000000004a0becRobertWed, 06 Jan 2010 15:02:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b44ec4000000000004a0bec
Millions of Americans take only a week and do very well.
If you really feel it's slave labor, your just not the type of person who should be working at a for-profit company.
IMHO we should be reducing not increasing. If everyone cut down to 1 week we'd gain millions of hours in productivity with 0 increase in cost. There's no solid evidence vacation time improves productivity, all studies have had significant bias (I believe Travelocity has sponsored the largest so far).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b43600400000000004f7bd2PTue, 05 Jan 2010 10:51:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b43600400000000004f7bd2
I agree w this new policy. In fact, I think they r ahead of their time. One big reason y people hv to come to work is to use computers and since computers have become so accessible, it makes sense to be able to work flexibly. But I think the corp work place hasn't caught up yet. Some great and efficient companies understand this already...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b42416e0000000000cca63bAlora Clarisse ChistiakoffMon, 04 Jan 2010 14:28:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b42416e0000000000cca63b
I think this is a logical extension of a Results Only Work Environment, which is why I'm a little surprised to see so many employees balking at it. But then, the point above about people not trusting their employers is obvious.
I think summarily dismissing it is disingenuous, though, because as long as there are formal policies you'll have people striking deals to get around them when they have a reason/need. (http://www.workingpoint.com/blog/2010/01/04/when-does-a-no-vacation-policy-make-sense/?utm_source=bizinsider&utm_medium=comment&utm_campaign=entev)
I think it's far more fair and reasonable to simply expect -- and require -- that your staff behave like responsible adults, and leave their time off strategy to what makes sense in their life, and work as part of a mature team of professionals to sort out coverage while they are out.
In reality, holding teams accountable for this behavior is actually more work for managers, though, because it means being more diligent about hiring responsibly, delegating, training, reviewing and building teamwork and accountability.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3c40d700000000007f361dCali & JodyThu, 31 Dec 2009 01:12:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3c40d700000000007f361d
Unlimited paid time off should be instated. No vacation policy. No sick time policy. No personal time policy. We're all adults and if we're achieving our results, that's what matters.
Will people sit on the beach all day every day and never work? If they don't want a job, sure.
Will productivity go up? Yes. Will people be healthier? Yes. Will good talent stick? Yes.
We have the numbers to prove it. Every team that has migrated to a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) operates with the Guidepost that there is unlimited paid time off as long as the work gets done. When the focus is on results vs. time, amazing things happen...for business and for lives.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3bf31a0000000000d4a8afROWE FanWed, 30 Dec 2009 19:40:57 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3bf31a0000000000d4a8af
I think they're on the right track. Why don't we focus on RESULTS instead of TIME and physical presence?
If someone has to be reprimanded, it should be results-related.
This is a business agreement. I'm selling my good work, not my time or my life. If you know what I'm supposed to be accomplishing, you'll know whether or not I'm accomplishing it.
www.facebook.com/ResultsOnlyWorkEnvironmenthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3bcf840000000000baf1a0Len FeldmanWed, 30 Dec 2009 17:09:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3bcf840000000000baf1a0
I lean strongly toward the Netflix approach. Let's remember that TBI is a professional organization; it may have some hourly personnel, but probably not very many. If you treat professionals like professionals, they'll act that way. If there's a concern about employees taking vacation at critical times, you can issue policies that say that any vacation or leave scheduled for those periods has to be preapproved, and any leave longer than a certain number of days must also be preapproved.
The company that I work for has a generous annual vacation allowance, but the vacation time doesn't accrue from year to year. Also, it doesn't have separate sick leave and vacation time policies; it all comes from the same pool of hours. The policies lead to employees taking time off under the "use it or lose it" principle.
Should you force employees to take time off? In some cases that makes sense, but in most cases, employees can make their own decisions on how much time to take and when. The most important way to "grant permission" to employees to take time off is for them to see the boss taking some time off. If the boss doesn't see anything wrong with taking time for vacation or to go to the doctor, his or her employees won't have a problem with it, either.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3bb3bb0000000000336bf0Beth RobinsonWed, 30 Dec 2009 15:10:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3bb3bb0000000000336bf0
I just finished reading a book on this topic called "Work Sucks". The authors emphasized that putting this kind of policy in place made it all about trust. A lot of the responses to this post have showed me how true that is because what comes up over and over again is that employees don't trust their employers not to take advantage of them by putting a "no vacation policy" policy in place. If you're skeptical about how the idea can work, then you might want to try reading the book.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3ac3990000000000fdce6fNaomi MostTue, 29 Dec 2009 22:06:01 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3ac3990000000000fdce6f
Rewards and incentives are predominantly anti-correlated with productivity and creativity, actually.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.htmlhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3ac2c900000000005133cfNaomi MostTue, 29 Dec 2009 22:02:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3ac2c900000000005133cf
<i>Ultimately, I want to be judged on output and results, and if I can accomplish that taking three weeks off in a year (ha!) then that should be fine. </i>
Europeans regularly take 3-4 weeks per year, some even 6 weeks (hah!). How DO they manage??
http://itotd.com/articles/351/work-week-and-vacation-variances/
Americans now work more than the citizens of any other nation in the world. And yet the rest of the world doesn't fall apart into anarchic sloth. Fancy that!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b39001c0000000000c188ebPaula W.Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:59:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b39001c0000000000c188eb
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is either a corporate Controller/CPA, or a socialist/communist. This concept proposes to undo a century-worth of hard earned and fought for workers rights with the swipe of a pen.
Screw you Netflix! I'm glad I switched to Blockbuster. If I hadn't already, I would certainly do so now.
Vacation time is part of the hiring contract. It is earned in increments based on time put in - time that the company benefited from. It is there to protect the well being of the employee. If the company doesn't want to pay for unused vacation time when they lay off/fire/lose workers, tough. They reaped the benefit and promised to pay or give time off in return - they owe the employee. Period.
Of course they don't want to pay up, especially when they lay off say 30,000 workers. Well, so what! Boo hoo. I don't want to owe taxes, but I bite the bullet and pay up, anyway.
This is spitting in the face of the American worker. I do not work for a company and haven't in over a decade. I run my own business. Yet, I can see the writing on the wall. Or rather, the erasing. The negating. The destruction... Of workers rights.
Have you read ANIMAL FARM? Well, this is it. Any American who hasn't read George Orwell's Animal Farm should read it now. This is just another way of screwing the worker to benefit the fat cats.
I'm disgusted that this is even a topic. Netflix should be ashamed.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b38f855000000000007c1b3TahoeBearMon, 28 Dec 2009 13:26:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b38f855000000000007c1b3
While Mr. Blodget says, "we don't want to encourage people to count the hours and minutes of vacation they are "owed" and treat the job like an annoying chore." let me tell you: it IS a chore! And most normal folks DO count the hours and minutes to vacation time. Plain and simple. Ask yourselves: would you really rather be at WORK, or would you rather win the lottery and CHOOSE to work? I know that latter option may not be possible ... but if you work hard, save money and retire early you can truly have the life you are dreaming about now. I have that life. And I would not choose to go back to work for a million bucks.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b38f69600000000003b6386TahoeBearMon, 28 Dec 2009 13:19:02 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b38f69600000000003b6386
While Mr. Blodget says, "we don't want to encourage people to count the hours and minutes of vacation they are "owed" and treat the job like an annoying chore." let me tell you: it IS a chore! And most normal folks DO count the hours and minutes to vacation time. Plain and simple. Ask yourselves: would you really rather be at WORK, or would you rather win the lottery and CHOOSE to work? I know that latter option may not be possible ... but if you work hard, save money and retire early you can truly have the life you are dreaming about now. I have that life. And I would not choose to go back to work for a million bucks.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b37d7750000000000d9220fncalsurferSun, 27 Dec 2009 16:53:57 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b37d7750000000000d9220f
I think the "we don't care" is dependent on how the "policy" is communicated. My tech company closes down from Christmas through New Year's (use vacation or no pay) and I don't feel it says "we don't care." I see it as an opportunity to do whatever I want during the holidays.
What I don't like is the accrual / "bucket" policy where we get standard U.S. holidays and then a bucket on a few accrued days to use for personal time or sick time. As long as I get my work done, I should be able to take a fair amount of vacation. We should get national holidays + two weeks AND with the company closure during the winter, this would make for the perfect balance of work hard / play hard.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3691720000000000f6878aCharlieSat, 26 Dec 2009 17:42:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3691720000000000f6878a
Kick it to the curb. "Vacation time" treats people like children. Either they're worth what you pay them and they're getting the job done or they're not... end of story.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b368d6300000000004d6196Marc CenedellaSat, 26 Dec 2009 17:25:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b368d6300000000004d6196
I've been a fan of Netflix's employment practices since seeing their '7 Great Reasons to Work at Netflix' http://www.netflix.com/Jobs . I chatted with Reed and his Chief People Office Patty McCord about this particular policy because I was so intrigued.
We decided to put it into place at TheLadders this year (for salaried employees, LegalVulture is correct that this is impossible to pull off for hourly workers -- a category that has been greatly expanded since about 2004 due to government regulations) and based on the anecdotal evidence, it's a big success. We'll be doing a follow-up review of it for 2009 and I'd be happy to share.
My one concern was that people wouldn't take time off because of insecurities and unintended consequences of how it was implemented. That might seem, at first glance, to be mis-placed, but when you consider that under the old system, we had a lot of people not taking all of their vacation, the data supports the fear.
So there are two additional important features to make this work:
a) Two weeks *minimum* vacation is required. And you have to grade / review / pay your managers on it. If a manager unintentionally sends out signals that taking vacation is frowned upon, employees are quick to get the message. So it is important that you institutionalize it, and make certain that there are company-wide incentives in place to make the policy a reality.
b) Communications -- you need to re-iterate, frequently, that the idea is for people to take the breaks and vacations they need in order to be productive. And speak publicly about how you find taking time away from work to be essential for you to be your best.
With knowledge workers, it's very important that their "means of production" are well-rested, well-maintained, and well-cared for. The vacation policy of "take some" is the best way to treat your people as adults, and for both the employee and the company to get their best performance.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b36289200000000007f28c2MacroEconomistSat, 26 Dec 2009 10:15:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b36289200000000007f28c2
Henry, structure is important. While management types have no defined hours, worker bees need a sense of order.
On another note, the typical vacation policy of an American firm is silly, in my mind. It doesn't really add to productivity or worker happiness. In the end, it isn't always about the monetary bottom line.
That said, when there are no rules, chaos tends to ensue.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3625c00000000000cf8bf6Dean WormerSat, 26 Dec 2009 10:03:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3625c00000000000cf8bf6
BTW IMHO productivity and success come from happy, excited, motivated, and appreciated employees.
Perks are not the way.
Respectiful, structured but creative environments where people and ideas are encouraged and rewarded builds that culture. People who feel successful and appreciated will be worth 2x-3x over people who fear failure and live in obscurity in their cubicles waiting for their next vacationhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b36239200000000005afce5Dean WormerSat, 26 Dec 2009 09:54:10 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b36239200000000005afce5
I have worked in large and small companies with lots and little vacation, sweat shops, and country clubs.
No defined vacation sets up insecurities for the staff and is largely window dressing that sounds fun to new employees, but it is really, in my experience, like other perks, is actually kind of deceiving. Henry, the employees are not likley to abuse it, but the company does.
I also worked in a company that gave huge amounts of vacation because they kinda paid low. It was a wonderful old line company, but too much vacation does cause issues....everyone is always out!! I took many three week vacations there. Loved it and it was common practice and all the work got done, people were very happy, worked hard and spent their lives there. Our group secretary was there for 25 years and she was a doll and a pro!
As a manager I never tracked time off of my people but everyone needs to give clear notice to their teams and make coverage arrangements. When you cover for someone, you need to do it, not pass it off.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35acca00000000009a7262laioSat, 26 Dec 2009 01:27:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35acca00000000009a7262
I worked at a firm for nearly 8 years where we all worked like dogs. The President and VP had no lives and they expected everyone else to work 24/7 and guess what we did. There was no formal sick leave policy and the culture was not to take time off. It was all a game. The 2 top execs would mark their calendars that they would take vacation--but either come into work part of the day or work from home! Yes sirree.
Of course there was always the obligatory....'Oh go home, you're working too much'. But I saw 2 people walked out the door he was classified as clock-watchers because they left at 6:30PM !
Companies already expect that we are always available by text, phone, email and that we should be up to speed all the time. It's gotten out of control...especially for mid and sr. managers. We're stressed and hesitant to be out of touch because it may mean that we are out of a job.
What we need is MORE protections and labor rights more than ever. We can't advocate for ourselves because we'll be fired.
Sure in an ideal workplace with enlightened corporate executives....we could flex to work, schedule, and personal time. But let's be realistic..... where does that happen? Very, very few firms. Most of us are working harder and longer to show that we deserve to keep our job and that means hitting the home-run ball every time we can.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35a9ab000000000059d4aaPhil DeweySat, 26 Dec 2009 01:14:02 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35a9ab000000000059d4aa
Netflix is notorious in the Valley as a horrible sweat shop. If that's how you want your company to be perceived then so be it.
One other thing to consider about Reed's slide set on Netflix culture. It is 168 slides long. 168. If your little company of less that 1000 people world wide needs 168 slides to explain it's culture then maybe the culture is poorly defined. Maybe management is spending too much time communicating ineffectively. Or maybe management is perpetrating a scam. 168 slides? On culture? When I worked at ROLM in the early 80's and later Tandem, the culture could be defined in 4 sentences but communicated in the actions of the executive staff on a daily basis. Respect for the individual, have fun, work hard, customer comes first. How fucking hard is that?
Netfilx is a lousy place to work. Now SAI will be too...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3584ac000000000039ef60PandJonBFri, 25 Dec 2009 22:36:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3584ac000000000039ef60
I totally disagree here. No parameters is bad news for everyone except for the lawyers litigating HR's decisions. You cannot do a good job and be on vacation at the same time. Also, have you ever considered the fact that vacation is considered an employee benefit by many? Personally I would not apply for a position at a company that didn't have the vacation benefit and paid time off clearly defined in their policy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b357fee0000000000f59619nickFri, 25 Dec 2009 22:15:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b357fee0000000000f59619
My understanding is that he is paid enough to be able to retire and move to safari after four years. Meanwhile I suppose it is a minor requirement to stay near the civilizationhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b357e8400000000002342e0nickFri, 25 Dec 2009 22:09:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b357e8400000000002342e0
Try peer reviews. Chances are that people collaberate and that they can be pretty accurate about who does what and how significant it is relative to the other people theywork with.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b357bcd00000000009bfce7nickFri, 25 Dec 2009 21:58:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b357bcd00000000009bfce7
That's BS. You should determine who is the dead weight by regular performance evaluation, not by leaving mine fields with signs "here be cookies".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b354dcb0000000000ad3076Marquis LafayettFri, 25 Dec 2009 18:42:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b354dcb0000000000ad3076
you have to check your black berry twice a day while on vaction ? that's fucked up ... what if you want to go on an african safiari ? or go roaming in the jungles of belize ?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35398a0000000000320377nickFri, 25 Dec 2009 17:15:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35398a0000000000320377
And now compare the innovation comminge from 400k IBM employees, with Google's 20k or apple's 37k. IBM cheats employees out of vacation time? How classy. Unfortunately the best people know they have options and it shows.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35318400000000006e5986nickFri, 25 Dec 2009 16:41:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35318400000000006e5986
I totally agree. Where I work employees are treated as adults and this policy works for sick days, but if you want to be a great employer with always overacheaving employees, you will actually force your employees to use the vacation days. People cannot be trusted to make the right decision here, but everuyone gets better when they recharge the batteries and often people pick up new ideas while on break. That said, there is nothing wrong in expectation to put all things in order before taking off.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3530090000000000c5fb5eKatherine WalkerFri, 25 Dec 2009 16:35:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3530090000000000c5fb5e
Well, what if I want to take off and backpack around Europe? As long as I let my team know an do my work, that's cool right?
As one who is freelance and therefore any 'vacation' time is spent fretting about finding the next job, I do remember the days when I had vacation time (in a staff position) and I do think you want to monitor this somehow, not be so loosey goosey about days off. Is it too hard to just work out some standard, 6 months in, 4 days off, 12 months in, 2 weeks accrued kind of policy? It seems so basic.
Then there are the very valuable 'mental health' days -- and also the business-friendly, employee-not-so-much 'unpaid leave' (which you usually have to take when something bad happens in your non-work life, and exactly when you could use some kind of emergency income for unforeseen costs of 'when bad stuff happens') -- which I have always felt should be categorized separately from a MANDATED (oh, how I wish!) VACATION based on accrued time at the company-- if I know I'm eligible for perks after 6 months, that is a mini-incentive for me to pass my 3-month review and so on.
I think it's good to place some guidelines, an equation of days we can afford to lose you from work based on how much work you do when you're here, in place for employees. This supposedly 'hip' management style is what we do in our industry (film/television mostly freelance contract work) and it results in us all being adults, getting the work done and making deadlines -- so we have no set time on/off (unless we are shooting, then it's 10 hours for crew, upwards of 16 for producer/director).
My point being -- poll your employees. I would want a set "you get 2 weeks off after your first year or 16 months..." or whatever seems right. But I sure would love a nice 4-day weekend vacation deal after my first benchmark performance eval.
Also having some consistency to apply to your employee's requests will help in the long run -- because I can just imagine, "Well how come he got to take 10 days off but I only got away fro 5, and I've been here longer, and we're working on the same project, but he's technically my superior so he dumped all his work on me so he can have a longer vacations..."
Because of this: "We're all adults here, and I assume that we are all working at ______ because we choose to be part of building a world-class company. Therefore, we don't need to track vacation days. One consequence is that we will also no longer accrue for vacation days, so if you end up leaving the company in the middle of the year, you won't get paid for unused vacation days, and there will be no year-to-year carryover of unused vacation days."
That sounds good for the company but sucks for the employee. I would reconsider this and maybe involve a facilitator (what I used to do -- develop strategic plans and policies WITH companies and organizations--so all values are heard and aligned for the best operations) in assessing the VALUE of this to your workers. I can see the value to the company -- don't have to track any of it and don't have to pay for unused days. That's a little bit of bah-humbug, actually, so just keep that in mind...Who are you really doing this for?
I admire your being transparent on this matter--good luck and let us know what happens with the newfangled unscheduled 'play time' policies...Katherine Walker, TV producer-director-writer, documentary/realiltyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b352fc80000000000bb3418Katherine WalkerFri, 25 Dec 2009 16:34:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b352fc80000000000bb3418
Well, what if I want to take off and backpack around Europe? As long as I let my team know an do my work, that's cool right?
As one who is freelance and therefore any 'vacation' time is spent fretting about finding the next job, I do remember the days when I had vacation time (in a staff position) and I do think you want to monitor this somehow, not be so loosey goosey about days off. Is it too hard to just work out some standard, 6 months in, 4 days off, 12 months in, 2 weeks accrued kind of policy? It seems so basic.
Then there are the very valuable 'mental health' days -- and also the business-friendly, employee-not-so-much 'unpaid leave' (which you usually have to take when something bad happens in your non-work life, and exactly when you could use some kind of emergency income for unforeseen costs of 'when bad stuff happens') -- which I have always felt should be categorized separately from a MANDATED (oh, how I wish!) VACATION based on accrued time at the company-- if I know I'm eligible for perks after 6 months, that is a mini-incentive for me to pass my 3-month review and so on.
I think it's good to place some guidelines, an equation of days we can afford to lose you from work based on how much work you do when you're here, in place for employees. This supposedly 'hip' management style is what we do in our industry (film/television mostly freelance contract work) and it results in us all being adults, getting the work done and making deadlines -- so we have no set time on/off (unless we are shooting, then it's 10 hours for crew, upwards of 16 for producer/director).
My point being -- poll your employees. I would want a set "you get 2 weeks off after your first year or 16 months..." or whatever seems right. But I sure would love a nice 4-day weekend vacation deal after my first benchmark performance eval.
Also having some consistency to apply to your employee's requests will help in the long run -- because I can just imagine, "Well how come he got to take 10 days off but I only got away fro 5, and I've been here longer, and we're working on the same project, but he's technically my superior so he dumped all his work on me so he can have a longer vacations..."
Because of this: "We're all adults here, and I assume that we are all working at ______ because we choose to be part of building a world-class company. Therefore, we don't need to track vacation days. One consequence is that we will also no longer accrue for vacation days, so if you end up leaving the company in the middle of the year, you won't get paid for unused vacation days, and there will be no year-to-year carryover of unused vacation days."
That sounds good for the company but sucks for the employee. I would reconsider this and maybe involve a facilitator (what I used to do -- develop strategic plans and policies WITH companies and organizations--so all values are heard and aligned for the best operations) in assessing the VALUE of this to your workers. I can see the value to the company -- don't have to track any of it and don't have to pay for unused days. That's a little bit of bah-humbug, actually, so just keep that in mind...Who are you really doing this for?
I admire your being transparent on this matter--good luck and let us know what happens with the newfangled unscheduled 'play time' policies...Katherine Walker, TV producer-director-writer, documentary/realiltyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3522d200000000004f4659Not vacatingFri, 25 Dec 2009 15:38:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3522d200000000004f4659
I work for the most successful financial institution in the world. I am a salaried employee in a revenue generating but non-sales position. I am required to record my time in two separate systems. I am required to document how I spend my time during the day, and while I am required to check my BlackBerry at least twice a day while I am on vacation. That said, I am also required to make a real effort to take my allotted vacation and avoid burnout.
The key thing you're missing isn't accountability per se. It's using data. If you track time, you can better determine how to allocate human resources. It might mean more vacation and remote access, or it might mean a lot less. But you'll never know without gathering and analyzing the data.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35143a0000000000cc6203NewAlgierFri, 25 Dec 2009 14:36:26 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35143a0000000000cc6203
Every time I think of moving back to the States, I think of how horrible my life would be with only 3 crappy weeks of vacation. Then I take a big belt of scotch, cozy up to my wife (on her year of paid mat leave), hug my daughter (just got a free flu shot thanks to socialized medicine) and thank the stars that my country isn't full of debt-addicted workaholics, and that I actually have the protections of meaningful employment law.
Oh, and I make more than I would in the States thanks to the collapsing U.S. dollar. But what value do I place on my sanity?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3513c30000000000600ed2ScottFri, 25 Dec 2009 14:34:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3513c30000000000600ed2
I've never worked for a company that had a vacation policy, per se, other than to have a "no policy" policy. As a manager, you have to sometimes remind your reports to take vacation. As an individual, you sometimes have to stand up for yourself to take your vacations. But the level of accountability is quite high. The level of satisfaction is high. And the number of people taking rewarding vacations also seems quite high.
I do think it helps to set a norm (ie, no counting of days, but is "normal" 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, or what?). It helps if everyone knows they can't take 6 months off every year ;) but it also helps if everyone in management knows that you can't expect people to only take a few days a year.
Good luck with the policy change - I think you'll find it works just fine...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35122b00000000000a834dNewAlgierFri, 25 Dec 2009 14:27:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35122b00000000000a834d
Agree with Marquis. If you value your employees' vacations, then you would institute a generous policy and demand that they take the time off.
I work at a company with 6 weeks off. As part of my hiring negotiations, I suggested that they clip me to 4 weeks in the first year. Answer: "Absolutely not." That is a company that cares about my well being. Plus, if I get terminated or quit, I get paid out the accrual. That's very important.
"No paid vacation policy" sounds to me like "no vacation" and "no pay". I'm not surprised, Mr. Patterson, that your feedback experience has been positive. But if people start heading for the exits, you'll know why.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35120100000000002eb7faGoBlueFri, 25 Dec 2009 14:26:57 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b35120100000000002eb7fa
problem is for most jobs its pretty difficult to track productivity vs. perceived productivityhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b350aa800000000001db1ebBCFri, 25 Dec 2009 13:55:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b350aa800000000001db1eb
I do not work thru vacation. If I take vacation, I take vacation. Working thru vacation is called "work from home." and you should be compensated. I realize that my ... "life policy" is career-limiting, but I think this idea that you must work yourself to death is obscene and if it means I never get to be CEO, then so be it. Enjoy that time off.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b34ea2000000000004f2a3bJulie HansenFri, 25 Dec 2009 11:36:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b34ea2000000000004f2a3b
NYC-based Bluewolf adopted this policy: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/SMALLBIZ/310129973/1010/toc
Interestingly, they say their average vacation taken is 3 weeks.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b34aba10000000000e81a5cJamesFri, 25 Dec 2009 07:10:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b34aba10000000000e81a5c
I agree with the posters who think this is a BAD idea.
I like the company I work for / my job etc., but I don't like it enough that I wouldn't take a day off every other week if I was 'allowed'. Ultimately, plenty of us, even in jobs we like, work to live, not the other way around. I see the vacation days offered as similar to remuneration when I'm looking at jobs. It's part of the benefits package and will affect whether I take the job or not.
I have other hobbies I enjoy and the more time I can get off work to go do them the better. I don't think this makes me a bad employee at all.
I'm also very amused by this 20 days including sick type talk. As a European (in the UK, which is actually worse than much of Europe for this) I've had 28-30 days in all my jobs of the last 7 years + public holidays (a few less than the US) + sick day allowance.
I've had a serious illness and a serious accident this year (pure bad luck) and my medium sized firm has provided me with full sick pay for a total of 9 weeks this year (way over my contracted amount). God bless 'em. It's really nice NOT to have to worry about such things. That's true work-life balance.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b349d330000000000c64318Marquis LafayettFri, 25 Dec 2009 06:08:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b349d330000000000c64318
i'm glad i don't work for you .
Maybe now that you've made it to the "top " you've forgotten what work is like when your NOT the boss ....
In this day and age people are going to be AFRAID of taking time off if they don't have too for fear of losing their jobs .
"This policy is one small way to make that clear. I'm not especially concerned about abuse; if someone takes advantage, they aren't right for our team"
and tell me , without a guideline that outlines vaction policy just what IS abuse ? taking 2 days off a year etc ? ..... your going to work your employee's who are fearfull of losing their jobs to the "other guys " to death ... (and that's going to be alot of people ) .... but hey , if your the owner than you've most likely got one of those messed up mindsets that if you don't take any days off from work no one should either ....
Two thumbs down .http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b349b310000000000709e0brawbFri, 25 Dec 2009 06:00:01 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b349b310000000000709e0b
This type of policy clearly helps you identify who the dead weight is. If you want to know who is dead weight, and move to get rid of them, this policy could help you make it obvious who simply doesn't care.
If on the other hand you see the expense of laying off an employee as too much trouble to handle, you probably don't want to tempt your employees with this type of policy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3493230000000000562401lemmerdeurFri, 25 Dec 2009 05:25:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3493230000000000562401
Oh, and for the record, it fucking ROCKS that you even care to discuss and debate this issue. Most companies outsource such decisions to half-wit consultants with discredited Harvard MBAs.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b34927b0000000000ea07felemmerdeurFri, 25 Dec 2009 05:22:50 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b34927b0000000000ea07fe
Here's an idea: instead of worrying about how much time an employee can spend away from the office, why not figure out how much time an employee should be in the office to get things done that need to be done in the office?
Let's say it's a drunken fool like Carney*, who gets his best material when he's out carousing and being himself, and probably doesn't benefit much from daily meetings with other staff or other such communal cumbaya sessions. He might be required to show up for a weekly meeting, and other than that you just care that he fulfills whatever content quotas (quantitative or qualitative) are set for him.
Others require more structure. To add further complication, the same person might require more structure - and thus more required office time - for one project and less for another.
Each person should get their own unique policy in a relatively small organization like yours. In fact, this should be one of the benefits of not working for some massive conglomerate - the personal touch.
*Carney's an acquaintance, so I can say this, the rest of you SHUT UPhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3451e30000000000f42f16captainFri, 25 Dec 2009 00:47:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3451e30000000000f42f16
Why not try the best of both worlds?
Mandate that your workers take a minimum of 2 weeks off a year. If they can effectively do their jobs and take MORE time, leave that to their discretion.
Otherwise your are giving lip service to the idea that you 'are treating your workers like adults' while you are actually telling them to never take vacation. That lets you, the manager, have it both ways. You can feel good about letting them take all the time they want, and you can feel good when they never take any time.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3417b50000000000d3a16byahooguyThu, 24 Dec 2009 20:39:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3417b50000000000d3a16b
Instead of focusing on the policy let's guess which company is trying to do this. I have a friend at Ask.com who told me it was them. I have to say, it is a pretty wild attempt for Ask to be an environment of cool & hip. Keeping trying Jeeves, no one really wants to work there.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b340f3300000000007e85f0david tThu, 24 Dec 2009 20:02:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b340f3300000000007e85f0
get rid of it. doesn't work when you have adults around. mostly it requires people who take responsibility and do not blame others for a failure.
we have done it this way for twenty years. never a problem as long as we made good hire decisions.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3404e40000000000a64a8eJohn ChisumThu, 24 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b3404e40000000000a64a8e
I worked in healthcare which we self described ourselves as mission critical. Double shifting or even triple and double double were common. Sick employees were not replaced, we called in the next shift to work early. We needed a defined vacation policy so each person knew when they could disconnect from the work and relax.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33fb070000000000207f76McMuffinThu, 24 Dec 2009 18:36:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33fb070000000000207f76
slideshows suck on the mobilehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33f8e200000000007c8397MarkThu, 24 Dec 2009 18:27:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33f8e200000000007c8397
I like the slide shows as well.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33f5f500000000002de42bDave BoudreauThu, 24 Dec 2009 18:15:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33f5f500000000002de42b
My financial software company had the "take as many days as your want off" policy and it worked fantastic for us. They hired super workaholic, "overachievers." They paid us well, made sure we were well fed, threw great holiday parties and generally made us feel pretty awesome about where we worked. In turn, we worked like nuts, didn't abuse the policy and felt pride in our workspace. I don't think anyone ever took more than a 20 days off. People basically never called in sick since they could work from home or come in late or early on some other days to "make up" the time. It provided an awesome work-life balance.
Then we ended up getting acquired for an ungodly sum by a large public company, they started keeping track of vacation days (among other perks) and before you know it a company that had something like 2% turnover rate now has somewhere in the 25-33% rate. My guess is when the final retention bonus is paid out in feb 2010 that that rate is going to double.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ef910000000000700286insiderThu, 24 Dec 2009 17:47:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ef910000000000700286
yes.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ef3b0000000000ca2b7dinsiderThu, 24 Dec 2009 17:46:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ef3b0000000000ca2b7d
sorry to say it but you (and all companies) definitely do need written policies
rightly or wrongly, employees sue their employers. for discrimination. for intimidation. for negligence. or just because they feel entitled and some barroom attorney says, nice juicy target, what the hell.
written policies are amongst the best protections a company can have against frivolous litigation
i hope to hell you never need such protections
but you don't buy insurance because of certainty. you buy it because of uncertaintyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ec9a000000000036fa42Legal VultureThu, 24 Dec 2009 17:35:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ec9a000000000036fa42
Where is Carney on this. Isn't he your resident lawyer? Netflix can't just eliminate tracking hours and days of work because it wants to. They are based in California which has very strict wage and hour laws. The vast majority of employees must be paid based upon the numbers of hours worked, whether employers like this policy or not.
So while I am a huge advocate of treating people like grown ups, first we have to overturn the nanny state.
Really, if Netflix is doing this, they are going to get screwed (and so will you) as soon as you have your first dissatisfied former employee. The cost of non-compliance with wage and hour laws and failing to accrue vacation can be huge. Oh, and if you are only talking about doing this with very highly paid employees, then you are right, but how many companies only have highly paid employees. Remember secretaries, software developers, editors, and other skilled employees who only make $60,000/year are not exempt from the wage and hour laws.
Finally, for those who think there might be some success in overturning the nanny state. Be aware, we are moving quickly in the other direction.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ddb70000000000c5dc94LoganThu, 24 Dec 2009 16:31:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ddb70000000000c5dc94
There's much more of a chance management will abuse non-management types if there is no set vacation policy. All a boss needs to do is just label those who go on vacation as 'not a self-starter,' or 'lacking team focus,' or 'unable to plan,' and you've got workers' goodies right in your palm, where you can squeeze and squeeze.
I've worked a decade in high-end professional firm with no vacation policy. For a firm where the minimum salary was $250K, it was a fair trade off. Same for you as an analyst, Henry. You had a chance to make a lot, you did (and having once known you, I believe you did so fairly, publicity seeking prosecutors notwithstanding). Vacation sensibly for you was secondary then (and apparently now, as you write).
But most individuals are not as fortunate as you and I were in career windows. Recall the ad on NYC subways right now that points out that over one-half of workers in the city do not even get sick days as a regular part of their jobs. What kind of life are these and other workers going to have, if vacation is classified as something 'non self-starters' take? Why don't we just make the language honest and resurrect the word 'slave,' if we keep trending toward this darkness?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33d78d0000000000fc6287mclaassenThu, 24 Dec 2009 16:05:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33d78d0000000000fc6287
Some first hand experience with this policy:
The last company I worked for initiated this policy and in the first year one employee took four months vacation. Even more, that person dumped so much work on others that it hindered our productivity. And wouldn't you know, that same person refused to carry the workload of others when they vacationed (it was demeaning to him).
I suggest you think through the policy and keep tabs on employee time off. If you don't work to spot and stop abuse, it has a decent potential to eat away at the team atmosphere you need to excell. The last thing you want is employees having to bring the issue to you. By then a lot of harm has already been done.
my two centshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33d7140000000000691c1fmclaassenThu, 24 Dec 2009 16:03:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33d7140000000000691c1f
Some first hand experience with this policy:
The last company I worked for initiated this policy and in the first year one employee took four months vacation. Even more, that person dumped so much work on others that it hindered our productivity. And wouldn't you know, that same person refused to carry the workload of others when they vacationed (it was demeaning to him).
I suggest you think through the policy and keep tabs on employee time off. If you don't work to spot and stop abuse, it has a decent potential to eat away at the team atmosphere you need to excell. The last thing you want is employees having to bring the issue to you. By then a lot of harm has already been done.
my two centshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ce370000000000f78b8cDrew PattersonThu, 24 Dec 2009 15:25:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ce370000000000f78b8c
Fascinating to see the commentary here.
As the author of the email cited by Henry, I wanted to share a little more context about this vacation policy at Jetsetter.com (the company where this "change from normal vacation policy" took place). First, Jetsetter is a company that sells leisure travel experiences. Vacation is at the heart of our business. Second, in addition to the change in our vacation policy, we also introduced a benefit for employees to take advantage of the vacations we sell. The two policies (untracked time and credits for employees to experience the product we sell) are intended to work together.
The policies are designed to serve a couple goals. First, the team should feel a sense of ownership for their work and their time. Folks are at Jetsetter because they choose to be here, and we don't have to contract for every part of our interaction. This policy is one small way to make that clear. I'm not especially concerned about abuse; if someone takes advantage, they aren't right for our team. Second, we sell leisure travel; our team should live the product.
I don't know what's right for Business Insider, and only time will tell if this policy proves fruitful at Jetsetter. The (anecdotal) response I received from our team was positive.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33c8f40000000000968798DDDThu, 24 Dec 2009 15:03:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33c8f40000000000968798
Weezy for Pres!
Seriously I am fan of Weezy's post, too, although I disagree w/ most of them (He should stop calling market tops for instance)
One note to the editors: The number of posts have increased exponentially lately, unfortunately the quality and depth of the posts going to the opposite way. Maybe it's just me idk. And I believe you'll find a good balance between the quantity and quality at some point. Please take it as a constructive criticism.
Merry Christmas to the TBI family.
Best,http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33c8410000000000d49ed4lindaThu, 24 Dec 2009 15:00:01 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33c8410000000000d49ed4
John Dewey noted that before incentives humans still found a reason to innovate!
Thus, it's only because "scarce resources" that we even bother to track "hours worked," etc... At the end of the day, we're simply managing psychological expectations with money and give more to folks who would take it by gunpoint, etc....http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33c0380000000000b55041TimThu, 24 Dec 2009 14:25:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33c0380000000000b55041
I like the slideshows!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bfd80000000000196f7dStevieMThu, 24 Dec 2009 14:24:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bfd80000000000196f7d
about 1 in 10 of the slide shows are useful, the rest appear to be shameless ad impression generators. Not a good batting average -- lists are the skinniest and least thoughtful form of content.
while I'm at it, the use of pointless stock photos next to your articles really devalues your efforts. Again, maybe 10% of the time the photo is additive.
You guys do a lot of great work but should resolve in '10 to make the site less hokey, less page 6 like and focus on business.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bfcb0000000000919e3eTimThu, 24 Dec 2009 14:23:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bfcb0000000000919e3e
If this trend continues, most companies will see this as a way to eliminate vacation time altogether. Here is something for everyone to consider: Many other industrialized, First World countries have much more vacation time per year for employees (often mandated by law), yet those countries tend to have the same standard of living (or better!) than here in the U.S.
During my lifetime, I have had a growing feeling that in many companies employees are being treated more like comodities than as actual people (who have lives outside of work). We work longer hours, often harder, with what appears to be less time off. And how have most of us employees benefited overall (over the past 20-30 years)? Higher incomes? More time outside of work to enjoy life (since we are supposedly more productive than in the past)? Or do we now simply exist to work?
I'm not in the finance or business community. I am just a simple retail salesperson (one of the little people). As each year goes by, it seems that it is getting more and more difficult to get ahead (or even stay level) in life. Many retail companies have changed and lowered commission structures, reduced or eliminated benefits, and yet have asked for more of an effort from their employees. I have to ask "What are we working so hard for?" Employers beware! There comes a point where the employee simply gives up.
Expecting employees to work their hardest and give their best effort is correct. Getting rid of employees who do not work hard and/or take advantage of the system is also correct. Hard work is a great virtue. But companies need to realize that employees are people who need to have a life outside of work. Companies should include vacation time (and not the pitiful one or two weeks typical here in the U.S.!) as a reward for good and productive employees.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bbb3000000000068b08brbm411Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:06:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bbb3000000000068b08b
@kryptic
Necver thought of it that way. I've worked for that guy!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bb7f0000000000c710c6krypticThu, 24 Dec 2009 14:05:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bb7f0000000000c710c6
Add a week off between XMAS and New Year and you are starting to get a policy and the purpose of a policy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bacd0000000000a197e8FrenchConnectionThu, 24 Dec 2009 14:02:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33bacd0000000000a197e8
How about a European style vacation policy of 1 month vacation in the summer. I'm sure employees will love this.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ba1700000000004b5b03KarlMarxThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:59:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ba1700000000004b5b03
And everybody want off at same time.............oops............then you have a policy. Time would be better spent working on some other part of the company ..........that would add more value than dicking around with vacation policy.......it's so BS.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b5240000000000cf4ffbHenry BlodgetThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:38:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b5240000000000cf4ffb
I'm "the slideshow guy", insofar as I like them and encourage us to make them. And I think Courtney's off to a great start.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b3320000000000c54f4eclient 9Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:30:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b3320000000000c54f4e
Henry rules! Are you guys hiring?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b232000000000066d282JoeThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:25:53 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b232000000000066d282
psychological flexibility??? this is why I go through a staffing agency where I can get rid of someone anytime I want -instead of having to deal with someones "psychological flexibility" concernshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b134000000000083f8e1Jerry ManThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:21:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33b134000000000083f8e1
I like Yahoo's policy of just closing down for a week and forcing everyone to either take vacation or go without pay. Nothing says "We don't care" better during the holidays than forcing people to make that stark choice.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33afb30000000000040ddajeepersThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:15:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33afb30000000000040dda
My thinking is that this only works where there is a very competitive work environment.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33af7e0000000000353be1Santa ClausowitzThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:14:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33af7e0000000000353be1
Definitely, I'm a fan of Weezy. He's the hardest working man in financial journalism.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33af24000000000040782fBrentThu, 24 Dec 2009 13:12:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33af24000000000040782f
1 week off for your hunting trip should be mandatory. The summer fishing trip makes it 2 weeks for the year.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33abca0000000000601bcekrypticThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:58:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33abca0000000000601bce
What happens if the abuser is the manager, where people are pressured to not take vacation, or to only take a couple of days occasionally?
A reasonable policy with some flexibility protects your employees from abusive managers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ab5200000000002c8531yougotgThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:56:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ab5200000000002c8531
This concept will work in a great non dysfunctional office where everyone pulls their weight and everyone is a self motivated go getter with great time management skills... good luck with that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ab4500000000007f531dScott B.Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:56:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33ab4500000000007f531d
Give a bucket of personal days - 20 for example - for sick, vacation whatever.
Make use of a vacation calendar on your business calendar.
The structured approach will make it easier to plan and manage.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33aa7d0000000000b69cacJVThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:53:01 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33aa7d0000000000b69cac
I think you should eliminate the vacation policy and then maybe Courtney and the other garbage new writers will go on vacation for ever and we can go back to the way the site used to be. Also i hope the slideshow guy goes on vacation forever.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33aa6c00000000009fca3fkrypticThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:52:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33aa6c00000000009fca3f
If you own the company please take as many or few days off as you care.
Your employees need the clarity of what you consider appropriate vacation days, and in the USA that means:
* About 12 standard vacation days (XMAS Day, etc)
* Between 10 and 20 vacation days per year so people can take off a week at a time to go to the beach, etc
* A "sick leave" policy, because staff with the flu should stay home
* A policy on how much vacation can be rolled over from year-to-year (best to cap at 20)
* If you require people to work on the standard vacation days, a policy on how they get alternate days
* A policy to handle people who work excessive hours, with either extra time off, overtime, or special bonuses.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33aa680000000000d690f9rbm411Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:52:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33aa680000000000d690f9
How do you get rid of an abuser if there is no policy?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a98000000000008bfe63SashaDThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:48:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a98000000000008bfe63
I think whether this is a "good" or "bad" idea depends on kind of culture you want to foster in your organization. The reason this works for Netflix is because their culture is based around the idea of hiring and keeping only responsible people whose judgments you trust (or at least that's what they say in the doc). If you have those and ONLY those kinds of people working for you, then getting rid of processes and rules often makes sense, since reasonable people with excellent judgment should generally make good decisions and avoid catastrophic ones. I don't think you can just borrow the vacation policy from Netflix without borrowing the rest of the cultural essence.
So if the answer is yes, that you want to live that kind of culture, then this is a good idea. If people abuse the policy it makes it easier to identify the people you need to get rid of faster. If people don't take any vacation, then that's another data point on their decision making ability.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a8e800000000008ef750Matt LThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:46:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a8e800000000008ef750
Like anything else, it will work at some and not work at others. It all depends on the company culture.
I would be willing to bet that it would be a disaster for most companies however. Many employers are pressuring employees to do more with less. The pressure to not take time off would be extreme in may cases. As it is many salaried workers are pressured to put more work hours in because of the fear that they might no longer have a job.
A tight, cohesive group with goals that are very aligned would have more success with it though. A small company that has everyone benefit from expected hard work, and the understanding that time off is good for the company.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a801000000000094f79erawbThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:42:25 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a801000000000094f79e
should be mandatory 2 weeks off per year... seriously. 1 week is slave-drivereque.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a7450000000000ab0d39sidneyThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:39:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a7450000000000ab0d39
the best "vac" policy I've seen is a paid sabbatical of 4 weeks for every 5 years of service... taking on the extra 2 weeks of defined vac for a total of 6 weeks in a row allows for that dream vac... the folks come back really ready to work again or they don't come back at all...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a7430000000000acb62aellen marieThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:39:14 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a7430000000000acb62a
I don't know if this will become a national trend but...a friend has a job with a fairly large company that does not have an official number of days vacation policy. Vacation days are negotiated with your individual manager.
Americans are already among the most hard-working people in the world...if this trend catches on, we'll be #1!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a7030000000000121e97Bill DavenportThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:38:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a7030000000000121e97
I think it can be eliminated when there are clearly measurable results. So people tied to commissions or specific metrics are a good option for that. They get paid on what they produce. For other type positions (say a developer), admin staff, etc. you get into spots where somebody is out too much but their comp doesn't change and that then seems unfair to others working in a similar capacity. Or you have to have very well defined goals for those people and real consequences if those goals aren't met. Right now my company has vacation time and sick days and it seems like a better model is the Paid Time Off model although that has its own set of issues.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a6f3000000000021bb1cJWThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:37:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a6f3000000000021bb1c
I agree with SS. An established number of vacation days per year that do not carry over with a "use it or lose it" policy will work just fine. This will allow the psychological flexibility that most people require to do a good job at work. Even if you do not need the vacation for one year, at least you can plan to have it immediately the next fiscal year without the burden of guilt.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a6f0000000000090f40fPurpleTeethThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:37:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a6f0000000000090f40f
"Should" being the operative word.
We all like to think as employees we are independent contractors now, but we're not. There is no rollover of contracts to manage time on / time off, and it's the employers expectation that is the problem. I don't know very many employees that feel able to enforce their own rules and expectations against corporate culture / management preference. It doesn't take many "pace setter" type managers to make this vacation policy untenable if left solely to discretion.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a6ab00000000005724d8Jeff YablonThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:36:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a6ab00000000005724d8
Oh man, do I <i>WANT</i> to get behind that no-policy policy. But I can't.
Simple reason: while it may be true that many of your employees (maybe even <i>all</i> of the current crop) can be trusted to do things the right way, and while that "no one has come to work naked in a while" comment sounds great as a guidepost, there's another issue at play here:
When it comes time to sever your relationship with an underperforming employee, you need to have policy in place. Or things will get ugly.
The real issue is this: have a policy. "Enforce" that policy. And under that umbrella realize that <b>fair</b> and <b>equal</b> aren't the same thing . . . which is really what your no-policy thing would have attempted to informalize.
Jeff Yablon
President & CEO
<a href="http://answerguy.com">Answer Guy and Virtual VIP Computer Support, Business Change Coaching and Virtual Assistant Services</a>
<a href="http://twitter.com/virtualvip">Answer Guy and Virtual VIP on Twitter</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a66c0000000000a53556sidneyThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:35:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a66c0000000000a53556
When the chips are down a company will fire 1/2 its work force and expect the remaining staff to pick up the slack... who do you expect anyone to be able to budget time to go on vacation when they are required to do the work of 2 people instead of 1... I've seen instances of one person absorbing responsibilities of 3-4 former full time staff members... no way that person could find people to cover their tasks let alone ever be "done" with their tasks to actually go on vac. At least with the defined vac. he knows he can go and the business just has to bear the burden in some cases of their foolishness for overworking certain people...
I'm sure that in the case of some wickedly cool startup company like Netfl. or Clusterstock that the employees feel empowered as employee/owners in such a way they might contribute a good chunk of creativity and extra hours with the notion they will get rich off of stock options or equity stakes.. but shift gear to some old stogy company who's S curve vertical climb was 7 decades ago and you have a low growth/low profit margin scenario that just wouldn't fit too well with this concept.
Worse tack on a "call center" mentality with "wrap/idol" %'s on the phone and a performance management system of "x/y" where x is a measure of how much you obtain of something over a period of y time without taking into account vac. time and you are toast if you have an incentive to NEVER take vac. let alone go to the bathroom...
I think this system you described is great for some niche startups where employee's are the nerdy types who enjoy their work and would rather program another hour than go home to hear kids or the spouse screaming at them...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a5d90000000000af135fThe DudeThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:33:13 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a5d90000000000af135f
I hope you are not suggesting a set number of "PTO" (Paid Time Off) days, in which vacation and sick days are one and the same. This just means people come to work sick, especially if they are locked into vacation reservations or tickets that take up the PTO days. A crappy idea.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a58a00000000009b0d65PurpleTeethThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:31:54 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a58a00000000009b0d65
I disagree with aligning the need for policy to introversion. Plenty of introverts can deal with ambiguity. If you want to align with a personality type, probably the Myers Briggs J vs. P is the right one.
However I do agree with you this is likely to lead to very bad result in many companies. It's hard enough to take vacation even when accrued, and then expected that you work through it anyway where I work (large Fortune 50). I can only imagine if you were required to carve it out yourself, it would end up a 52 week/year work-year (and at 60+ hours a week, that's a lot).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a5100000000000fd0b43Big Blue BlowsThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:29:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a5100000000000fd0b43
Nope. We still have vacation days at Big Blue, we are just not allowed to carry them over to the next year unless their is an act of God. However, since we lay off people and roll two jobs into one, many people get cheated out of their vacation because they can't get anyone to cover their work.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a49e0000000000edb55bJoe WeisenthalThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:27:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a49e0000000000edb55b
I think 4 weeks is a little much (at least in the US), but a mandatory vacation policy is not a bad idea. Maybe at least one week off per year, something like that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a4590000000000e83383The DudeThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:26:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a4590000000000e83383
Totally smart. I think I'd like a job at your company.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a3a50000000000ded423txchick57Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:23:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a3a50000000000ded423
Yes, good idea. If anyone abuses it, everyone else will know it and then, so will you.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a37900000000007b8f33KnowYourOptionsThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:23:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a37900000000007b8f33
I own a small financial firm and I require to people take at least one week straight and to use all of their vaction days-- I won't reimburse them or allow them to carry-over. Use the days. I have never bought into the macho, I-can't-take-vacation-because-I am -too-important/busy. Bullshit. Get out of the office and clear your head. Getting different people to look at their positions/ book is a good practice so two weeks straight are required for the senior traders, once a year.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a2a80000000000c18cf0GordonThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:19:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a2a80000000000c18cf0
Weezy - keep up the great work. i like your contributions to the site the best.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a21e0000000000740b04592Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:17:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a21e0000000000740b04
Let's not forget that a main reason public companies do away with vacation policies is so they don't have to carry the balances on their books. I believe IBM also did away with their vacation policy many years ago. For tech companies whose employees don't typically take all of their vacation, this balance can affect EPS.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a20f0000000000ead84eSSThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:17:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a20f0000000000ead84e
OLD SCHOOL
Henry, I know your staff is not eager for input from me, they get enough as it is, but I have experienced more relaxed work environments than those at present and have a reflection for you. Without a fixed policy they're will be pressure to be always producing and working. You will find this good as a manager and owner but will not be aware of the slow decline in quality as staff with little time to read outside of the field, experience the world or otherwise reflect on what's going on around them become more and more superficial. Once the quality of the site declines, and the quality of readership along with it, will be in an unrelenting downward spiral and difficult to get back. Advertisers will lose interest in that type of demographics.
Try a mandatory 4 weeks vacation and some optional after that. Some of you younger staff that shows promise may actually be able to grow.
SShttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a1fa00000000004edb37Toby MacLeodThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a1fa00000000004edb37
Love the idea. More companies should think this way. If you are a salaried employee you should be responsible for getting your job done, and responsible for taking time to enjoy yourself. No one I know wants a job where your employer babysits you by telling you what to do and when. If you can manage your time complete your job the way it is supposed to be done, you should have the flexibility to create a work/life balance.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a1d500000000001cea58Danny ChorikiThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a1d500000000001cea58
Vacation days should also be tied to sick days. One of the things that became obvious this year with the flu epidemic is that it is a good idea to not come into work when mildly ill, but the policies don't support them. Just remember that policies are because of the people who will take advantage of they system. Which is a sign that you have hired the wrong person.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a1cb00000000009aa6c1justa grilThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:15:54 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a1cb00000000009aa6c1
in the long run, a non-defined vacation policy ultimately favors the lazy and punishes the self-starters.
Not a good idea if management cares about employee morale.
Human nature sinks, not rises, when left to its own devices.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a0e10000000000b81e08clickbotThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:12:01 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a0e10000000000b81e08
As an added bonus, this removes the vacation payout liability when you have to lay people off :-)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a0900000000000a62524RickThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:10:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a0900000000000a62524
It is really hard to measure impact and time spent - so the real metric obviously needs to be impact (and at TBI it is easy to track metrics). As Eve states you have already effectively eliminated the policy why create overhead?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a08b00000000002a4458Joe WeisenthalThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:10:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a08b00000000002a4458
As an employee, I guess the status quo is fine.
Ultimately, I want to be judged on output and results, and if I can accomplish that taking three weeks off in a year (ha!) then that should be fine.
While a cap on vacation might be a good check on abusers -- though as you note, any abuser probably isn't getting their job done, so it's irrelevant -- I'm not sure than the Netflix policy would actually improve the work-life balance.
One nice thing about having a set number of days, is that you know what an acceptable level is. Taking that away might cause people to end up working more and taking less time off (the Freakonomics guys have probably written something on this).
Anyway, time for me to start breaking for the holiday.
Cheers!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a0660000000000bae7cfSay WhatThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:09:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b33a0660000000000bae7cf
This could work great for sales team and executives. BUT with administrative staff you will ALWAYS have one person abuse the situation, and piss off the the ones that are working hard. We have one single gal who always hustles. But since she has no family she is expected to always cover for the others. On top of that she works harder. Unfortunatley, you need policy for most salaried people.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339ec70000000000ff754bBarry GraubartThu, 24 Dec 2009 12:03:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339ec70000000000ff754b
Having done this for many years, I agree with clawback.
It helps to have a published policy - that will help you if/when some people abuse it.
But, like you, I don't know how many days I've taken in any given year. Probably fewer than our policy allows for, but enough to keep me from going insane. And, for the most part, I've never tracked how many days my team used. But, in the past 15-20 years I've had a few instances where people abused it and I had to point out the policy as part of the termination process.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339e0b000000000015da86EveThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:59:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339e0b000000000015da86
It sounds like you've already, unofficially, eliminated your vacation policy. Why bother eliminating it officially?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339e0000000000004a8152anonyfagThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:59:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339e0000000000004a8152
My company has a hard-line vacation policy where you're supposed to track everything left and right. However I don't think I've *ever* put in any time off I've taken. I'll tell my boss 'i'm exhausted, been coding 15 hours' and then go sleep a day. I'm sure HR would be infuriated if they knew.
But then I do lots of other shit without HR's approval, like move to other countries for 3,6,9, or 12 month periods.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339df900000000007f19f3Henry BlodgetThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:59:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339df900000000007f19f3
That feels right to me. I do think there has to be some expectation of "normal" set.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339ddc000000000002eea7MTThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:59:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339ddc000000000002eea7
Totally agree with YT. However, I do think companies should give their employees more vacation days. We don't really need to be here as much as we are.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339d8100000000006d189bclawbackThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:57:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339d8100000000006d189b
Just publish a policy regarding vacation days, but don't keep track. People want to know what the norm is; most can then be trusted to stay more or less within it. As for the others, either they have some legitimate need for more time off, or they can't be trusted.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339d240000000000e18990GordonThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:56:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339d240000000000e18990
IMO dumb idea. you're trying to hard to be a cool and hip and "with it" innovative "Google" company. what's next? air hockey table at the news deck for Weezy and Crazy Carney to battle it out? just give people their X weeks with a requirement that they have to use at least 1 solid week straight. let them sell any unused balance at the end of the year. why add an amorphous nebulous element to vacation policy? amorphous nebulous policies sound real cool and hip but creates problems. people may abuse it or fail to use it at all for fear of perception of abuse.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339cab000000000032ccf2YTThu, 24 Dec 2009 11:54:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4b339cab000000000032ccf2
Absolutely Disagree.
Introverted folks like myself prefer to have a defined policy that doesn't require crowing like a rooster just to take a vacation. It will make people feel like there is a big target painted on their back every time they take a vacation and therefore will be inclined to never, ever take vacation. HELLO MENTAL BURNOUT!